Steve Benen's note from yesterday just caught my eye...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015680.php

With all the cancellations of high-level meetings mentioned by Steve and the other indicators recently noted--a third aircraft carrier group heading to the Persian Gulf, the Senate's recent 97-0 vote on Sen Lieberman's resolution to censure Iran for killing American soldiers [an act of war], and the Guardian's news that Cheney is winning the G W Bush heart and mind contest with Rice and Gates vis-a-vis war in Iran--it looks like the shock and awe portion of the Iran campaign might start at any time. Hey, i'd cheerfully be wrong!

i hate writing this post. Prognostication is such a nasty business, and gets one called all kinds of kooky names. Nevertheless.

 

People keep asking why the Bushies keep amassing such power, if they don't realize a Democrat might have use of their "unitary executive" powers, perhaps even in the context of a Democratically controlled Legislature. The amassing of power in the executive branch seems short-sighted or potentially self-defeating.

 

What if Bush and Cheney have no intention of relinquishing their hold on the unitary executive in 2009? Remember this?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/pzykr/2006/oct/31/congress_frees_presidents_hand_to_declare_martial_law

 

Keep in mind that the Enterprise is sailing even now to the Persian Gulf and the redeployment plans of the two carrier groups in-region seemed unclear. Cheney is said to be gaining traction over Gates and Rice in the struggle for Bush's heart and mind vis-a-vis attacking Iran. Expect shock and awe soon.

And we know Iran will strike back at the Homeland. And we know how prepared the Department of Homeland Security is to protect us. Their datamining projects have enriched many a venture capitalist, no doubt, and the FBI loves those national security letters [legal or not], but when the inevitable attacks come, how prepared will this bureaucracy be to handle before, during, and after?

So it will be natural at some point for the president to declare martial law. He will press the National Guard into Federal Service. He may declare a national emergency, cancel the presidential elections. Who's going to stop him? The Supreme Court? 5-4...

But there has to be an ongoing hot war which he's the commander-in-chief of for him to rationalize this bold move--hence the inevitablity of hitting Iran.

Besides, this way lies Armageddon.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG19Ak04.html

 

Now we see how well this crew who doesn't believe in government has built an infrastructure to protect the homeland by creating more government: the Department of Homeland Security. Any predictions?

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 includes a little-noticed amendment to the Insurrection Act which increases the President's authority to declare martial law. (Hat tip to Radley Balko at TheAgitator.com.) President Bush signed this Act into law on Oct 17, 2006. According to Senator Patrick Leahy, "...this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study."

The relevant portion of the Defense Authorization Act is Section 1076 and is presented in full below for your convenience. A couple of items stand out to me. First, the President may "...employ the ... National Guard in Federal service..." (emphasis added), overriding traditional state control of National Guard troops. Most troubling to me is that he or she can do so if a condition exists that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." Opposes? So what are citizens to do regarding unjust laws?

Without further ado:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER-
GENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
`` 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
``(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to--
``(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that--
``(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
``(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- ``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
H. R. 5122--323

``(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
``(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.
``(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--The President shall notify Congress
of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A)
as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days
thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.''.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.--Section 334 of such title
is amended by inserting ``or those obstructing the enforcement
of the laws'' after ``insurgents''.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT.--The heading of chapter 15 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO
RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER''.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.--(A) The tables of chapters
at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code,
and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each
amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and
inserting the following new item:
``15 Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order ....................................... 331''.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections
333 and inserting the following new item:
``333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.''.
(b) PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 152 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
`` 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major
public emergencies
``(a) PROVISION AUTHORIZED.--In any situation in which the
President determines to exercise the authority in section
333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary
of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons
affected by the situation.
``(b) COVERED SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.--The sup-
plies, services, and equipment provided under this section may
include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage,
search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of
debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preserva-
tion of life and property.
``(c) LIMITATIONS.--(1) Supplies, services, and equipment may
be provided under this section--
``(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities
of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide
such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be;
and ``(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or
agencies of the United States charged with the provision of
such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide
such supplies, services, and equipment.
H. R. 5122--324

``(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equip-
ment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary
determines that doing so will not interfere with military prepared-
ness or ongoing military operations or functions.
``(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.--The provision
of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not
be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170b(c)).''.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies''.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 12304(c)(1) of such title
is amended by striking ``No unit'' and all that follows through
``subsection (b),'' and inserting ``Except to perform any of the func-
tions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or
by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may
be ordered to active duty under this section''.

 

Too late to help Kenny Boy but certainly serving Bush's remaining supporters well is the potential inherent in the little-noticed delegation of authority memo of 5 May 2006 which gave John "the blind ambassador" Negroponte power to waive SEC rules, exempting businesses from reporting requirements. Dawn Kopecki broke the story in:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

Kopecki decodes it for us:

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

So the rest of the crony capitalists can breathe a big sigh of relief: their man in Washington won't let them go down like Ken went down. George W, feeling the heat perhaps of his proximity with Lay, though, has placed potential scandal one remove from the White House by vesting pliable Negroponte with signature power.

The final result, though, will be a business class that is less accountable, ripe for corruption and graft. Give it to them and they will take it: it would be against their own interests not to.

The following is snipped directly from Rosen's interview with Harris: 

Q: Have officials from the White House complained to you or to Post political reporters about Froomkin’s column?

John Harris: They have never complained in a formal way to me, but I have heard from Republicans in informal ways making clear they think his work is tendentious and unfair. I do not have to agree with them in every instance that it is tendentious and unfair for me to be concerned about making clear who Dan is and who he is not regarding his relationship with the newsroom.

 

The Syria Accountability Act of 2003 had as its purpose: 

To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes.

Any of these sound like familiar reasons for this Administration to go to war?  But George Bush knows very well that the political climate in this country will not support him in starting another preemptive war in the Middle East at this time.  Is it his strategy to try to create that political climate by provoking Syria into overt aggression against our troops?

The Syria Accountability Act has an escalating series of sanctions that may be (many already have been) imposed as Syria is said to be out of compliance with UN resolutions and international norms and expectations.  Covert military action is consistent with the escalation of sanctions which have been going on since the passage of the Act in May, 2003.

Condeleezza Rice recently refused to rule out military intervention in Syria (or Iran) when she was in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:  "I think you'll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war in Iraq." 

Why is the information coming out now that a special-missions unit is already operating inside Syria?  Just good journalism from the intrepid Sy Hersh?  Or is the political climate being prepared already? 

From 1989 until 2000, Nabil al Marabh, an Al Qaeda operative, lived in Boston and worked there as a cab driver. He was a "sleeper agent." He lived and worked for several years with another terrorist named Raed Hijazi. In NOVEMBER 2000, Hijazi was arrested in connection with a failed bomb attempt in Syria and BEGAN TO COOPERATE WITH INTERROGATERS. HE IDENTIFIED AL MARABH AS AN AL QAEDA OPERATIVE. This is nearly a full year before Sept 11, 2001. The details of the story are here.

The administration knew about Nabil al Marabh as reported by Judith Miller and Tim Golden in the New York Times on Sept 18, 2001.  Note now soon after 9/11 this story appeared.

On Sept 3, 2002, Nabil al Marabh was ordered deported to Syria, the US government saying that it did not have enough information to hold him. At the time, if memory serves, lawmakers were upset that he was released. That he was released makes sense to me if in fact, as i believe, federal investigators learned the full details of the pending plot by surveilling this man. Releasing him makes him less obviously a suspect in the attacks and discourages speculation that the government might have known what he knew.

As i've noted in previous posts, inference is an imperfect tool with which to attempt to ascertain "truth."  But when one adds the clues such as John Ashcroft's ending his use of civilian airlines shortly before 9/11 and the fact the the president just happened to be in perhaps the safest state in the Union (30 miles from CENTCOM HQ), it all does fit a pattern.  And just because one promulgates a conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily mean that the conspiracy didn't occur. 

Some say the Bilderberg Group vets potential candidates for US president and has veto power.  Others point to the power the media have.  Al Gore in a recent speech said

Our democracy has been hollowed out. The opinions of the voters are, in effect, purchased, just as demand for new products is artificially created.

Media is the context in which all politics occurs nowadays.  A man (or woman) doesn't get to be president who doesn't know how to use the media to full advantage.  But mustn't there be something in it for the media?  Not the beat reporters and the anchors; i mean the owners.  Those on the highest rungs of the ladder, who know what power the media have, don't they have a stake in who gets elected? And don't they have the power the influence outcomes?

For that matter, who let Judith Miller loose? i don't mean from jail; i mean to do all that reporting on weapons of mass destruction that weren't there.  But i digress.

There are Powers in our country that work behind the scenes.  Big Money.  Lobbyists.  Special interest groups.  Among the most powerful are those who control the media.

But really, who runs the country?  Skull and Bones?  Some secret cabal of very rich people? 

Whoever it is needs a fall guy.

The choice to go to war was deliberate and immoral.  We were not under attack nor was there a clear and present danger of attack from Saddam Hussein.  Americans will have a guilty conscience until they find someone guiltier than they are to take the blame.  A guilty conscience will not support the war effort.  The powers that be need Americans to support the war effort because there's a lot more fighting to come.  Americans need to feel good about the war.

So Dick Cheney has to go.

Because if Dick Cheney did it, George W Bush didn't.

Raw Story

is reporting that a second mid-level political appointee in the Vice President's office has flipped.  David Wurmser is said to be cooperating with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. 

"But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves. Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power."

The existence of a "proximate cause" implies the existence of an "ultimate cause."  Even Condi couldn't try to make the case that Saddam was the ultimate cause of all terrorism.  Removing him was necessary but not sufficient, at least as far as the Administration is concerned. To "go after the root causes...meant a different kind of Middle East."  Iraq was the available target, but is only a means to an end.  The American people are not prepared for the full picture yet.  The fighting is not nearly over.  Next: Syria? Iran?

Miller:

Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.

Huh?  Fitzgerald wanted to question Miller about sources unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife? I don't doubt there were other sources Miller wanted to protect, but the assertion that they were unrelated to the case seems implausible.

Miller's next sentence flatly stated that without Fitzgerald agreeing to limit his questioning she "would still be in jail."

So it is clear that Miller had sources she wished to protect, people other than Libby.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred. 

Are these the same sources she was willing to have stayed in jail to protect?  Would she not be willing to lie to protect them, then?